list_repo_dependencies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, description fully discloses read-only nature with no side effects. Explains return format (JSON array of repo names) and empty result meaning. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with separated sections (Usage, Behaviour, Parameter guidance). Front-loaded with purpose. Though lengthier than minimal, each sentence adds distinct value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description covers return type and empty result. Mentions supported build systems. For a tool with 3 params and no output schema, it is comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds crucial details: repo_name must match indexing name, max_depth defaults to 3 and its usage, reverse toggles direction. These go beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Read-only cross-repository dependency graph lookup' and answers two clear queries: 'which repos does this repo depend on?' and 'which repos depend on this repo?'. This differentiates it from siblings like explore_file and find_callers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use BEFORE cross-repo analysis' and 'Use reverse mode for impact analysis before breaking changes'. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.